Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
No post body was provided.
The Twitter Files, Part Six
911–920 of 965 posts
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing posted on some companies website is governed by free speech or the USA’s 1st amendment. The Terms Of Service apply and typically a user has agreed to those by simply participating on the site. This includes account bans, blocking content, etc. the company can do whatever it pleases, if it benefits them to listen to a gov’t agency request then they might do it. Its comical that people believe Musk is promoting…
I never said Twitter was protected by the 1st Amendment, that specifically is about government. I said once government (which is limited by the 1st) intervenes to try to get a company to stop free speech, that's an affront to the 1st Amendment. It's coercion. Do you really think governments don't try to kill speech and ideas through coercion? Do you really see no problem with that? I have no idea why people like your…
People? Or sockpuppets?
I'm quite suspicious of the large amount of anti Elon propaganda going around. Especially on this platform where comments are usually more measured. It just looks different to normal and it has my Spidey senses tingling.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all well and good, and I am not a fan of Elon's latest moves toward Twitter (banning some journalists and sources of freely available information on other platforms), but the FBI has absolutely no right to try to get a private company to stop free speech. That's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. This is a story because the FBI has absolutely no business doing this. There is no "framing" in that, the FBI…
But aren’t they just flagging Tweets as potential violations of TOS? That sounds as tame as it could possibly be. The same option is open to me as an ordinary user.
So why didn't they use the same option you do rather than getting their own special web portal for it?
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#914Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly does the FBI asking a private sector company to take down posts violate this amendment? In our system, law including the Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary. You could as well ask "where is the Miranda warning in the Bill of Rights?" The actual precedents around "jawboning" are murky and contradictory, but it's well-established that the government can step over the line in violating constitutiona…
In that case, Republican politicians publicly complaining about social media moderation in threatening terms would be far more problematic than the FBI notifying Twitter of tweets that are in violation of their TOS. Yet I don't remember the "Free Speech" proponents doing anything but applauding these types of "informal coercion."
That's one of the falsiest equivalencies I ever did see
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the 1st amendment for reference: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How exactly does the FBI asking a private sector company to take down posts violate this amendment?
"We just want to ask a few question" If you think that men in black suits who can put you in jail for simply lying to them or obstructing them then you are vey naive. And that's not even considering all the trouble the DOJ can put organisations through even though they committed no crime. Just their reputation and power is enough to apply pressure.
See also, Elons companies getting audited out the wazoo since he broke the establishments favourite toy.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elon is not wrong to be suspicious, of course now he's banning actual, legit journalists who dare to question him, As far as I know he's only banning those that link to ElonJet. He's been a bit irrational since his two year old kid had a close encounter with a crazy person a few days ago.
Why do you accept that story at his word?
Because every time I look up a claim about him lying (as opposed to being delusionally optimistic about the future) I find it's false. E.g. felt last heartbeat, private information required for plane tracking, didn't get much parental help in business.
By default I believe people unless I have a reason to think they are lying.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#917Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they can't contact Twitter and express their opinions? The government routinely speaks to news papers about the government opinion on articles and how they are wrong. That's not censorship. Holding a figurative pistol to someones head and say "change this line" is censoring and supressing free speech.
Of course they can express their opinions. But it's not black and white. The Twitter Files already has a statement from a Congressperson that Twitter's actions with the Hunter laptop will "result in a blood bath" during Congressional hearings. If the 800 lb gorilla that is the US government is threatening a "blood bath", do you really have a choice when they ask for your "cooperation"?
In Germany yes, in the US, I don't know.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the companies who are afraid. It's the employees that are afraid of FBI. This is like your bosses make sexual advances at you. The power dynamics would make you uncomfortable.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. I’ve interacted with FBI agents in the course of my employment, and it did not feel like sexual harassment. It was fine; they helped us with a security problem and we appreciated the help.
> they helped us with a security problem
You are getting more and more obtuse. You know this is not the same, but you still use it in your argument.
In this case, FBI asked for the location of the accounts that "Twitter will voluntarily provide to aid the FBI". Ref: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604191731141984256
Why didn't FBI get a subpoena properly? why asking twitter to voluntarily provide information?
Were the FBI afraid of getting a subpoena for some reason?
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government doesn't actually have a right to speak? Without some evidence of threats or coercion I don't see the problem. This is like saying employees have the right to reject when their bosses make sexual advances. In theory, sure. In practice, not really. Employees fear for their careers This is why it's such a big no even if employees have mutual romantic interests. Same with the FBI. They can fuck up your l…
The main problem with your analogy is that sexual advances in a boss/employee power dynamic excludes many critical distinctions with respect to law enforcement vs a big tech company. I'll concede that the big tech companies certainly have an incentive to comply with law enforcement because of their legal authority, however as we all know, big tech companies are well equipped in terms of political influence as well as…
Let's just look at an example:
FBI asked for the location of the accounts that "Twitter will voluntarily provide to aid the FBI". Ref: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1604191731141984256
> whereas law enforcement may have a genuine law enforcement interest in asking for a company's cooperation.
Then, getting a subpoena shouldn't have been an issue since they have a genuine law enforcement interest. Judges would have an easy time signing the subpoena since this would be totally justified and reasonable. right? right?
Yet FBI decided not to do that and decided to ask Twitter to "volunteer" the information.
Re: The Twitter Files, Part Six
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
But aren’t they just flagging Tweets as potential violations of TOS? That sounds as tame as it could possibly be. The same option is open to me as an ordinary user.
So why didn't they use the same option you do rather than getting their own special web portal for it?
Prioritisation of requests. I'd be extremely surprised if Twitter wasn't already prioritising standard requests too. If you get at the same time 1 request each: from FBI, from someone with multiple actioned past reports, and from an account created 10 sec ago, it makes complete business and community safety sense to handle them in a specific order. (But not with different rules)
And if FBI provides such requests often enough, it makes sense to ingest them in the most efficient way that works for both sides.